THE UNIONIST PARTY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I have read with great interest the letters contributed by Sir Graham Bower in your issues of October 1st and 29th upon the subject of the League of Nations.
As a Liberal I would not venture to offer any remarks in regard to the action of the Unionist Party and the League of Nations, but the letters raise issues far beyond those of party. They involve questions of the most vital importance to the interests of this country. Are we to hand over the control of our policy to a Council sitting in Geneva, which will have the power of issuing orders to us, which would involve us in war ; or are we to retain control of our own policy, while co-operating with other nations for purposes of common interest and for the maintenance of peace, a fundamental interest for us ?
The League of Nations Covenant, worked out at a most
difficult time, was very imperfect ; it embodied two funda- mentally opposite principles. The very first clause of the Covenant states the main purpose of the League, " to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security, by the acceptance of the obligation not to resort to war." But later on, under the positive guarantee of Clauses 10 and 16, war is definitely contemplated as a means of furthering the League purposes. This is a contra- diction in terms and arises out of the positive guarantee given to the various States members of the League.
It is clear then that there are two different principles embodied in the League, and it is of the utmost importance that the League should gradually be modified in the direction of carrying out its original purpose, which was to create a body to deal with international questions by an alternative to war, viz., for the settlement of differences and disputes by discussion, conciliation, arbitration, and law.
Under the strong pressure of France in the direction of
the use of force, attempts have been made to strengthen the clauses embodying force. We have had the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance and eventually the Protocol, the latter even contemplating the use of force against non-members of the League !
The same conflict has been seen in the attempt to reconcile the- positive guarantee of force with disarmament, and our Dominions have pointed out to us that the giving of military guarantees means not the diminution of armaments, but the perpetuation of armaments and even greater armaments. When the War Office and the Admiralty were asked what would be the effect of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, if it were entered into, upon our armaments, they unanimously replied that our armaments would not be diminished, but would have to be greatly increased to carry out its obligations.
Owing to the positive guarantee involving the automatic use of force under unknown conditions and - at unknown times, the United States took fright and eventually declined to join the. League. Our Dominions also were alarmed at these clauses, and have consistently endeavoured to get them modified ever since they joined the League.
Sir Graham .Bower is quite right when he asks us to distinguish between joining the League to co-operate for purposes of common interest ; and joining the League as a super-State, with powers of issuing decrees to us and to other members as to. whom and when they should fight.
Does not the true solution lie in basing the League more and more upon the undertaking that. each member should give, that it will not Commit an aggression against any fellow member of the League and will co-operate for the common good? This avoids all the difficulties involved in the creation of a super-State to carry out a positive guarantee as is proposed in the recent Protocol.
In the past the creation of super-States, such as the Papacy and the Amphietyonie League, led to wars rather than to the maintenance of peace. As I have written elsewhere, the fact therefore is that the League of Nations constituted for the definite purpose of avoiding the use of force and war, if it resorts to the use of force and war to carry out its purposes, however beneficent, stultifies itself and denies its own funda- mental principle.
The League was constituted as a means of settling disputes by reason, discussion, conciliation, arbitration, and law, as opposed to settling them by the principles of force and war. It cannot have it both ways. It must be consistent and must itself be true to its fundamental principle.—I am, Sir,
&e., P. A. MOLTENO. 10 Palace Court, London, W. 2.
Previous page
